MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949912591 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz404

Weak lensing constraints on splashback around massive clusters

2019· article· en· W2949912591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Omar Contigiani, Henk Hoekstra, Yannick M Bahé

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPhysicsWeak gravitational lensingAstrophysicsDark matterMeasure (data warehouse)RedshiftGravitational lensCluster (spacecraft)Line-of-sightLogarithmCosmologyRADIUSBaryonGalaxyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The splashback radius rsp separates the physical regimes of collapsed and infalling material around massive dark matter haloes. In cosmological simulations, this location is associated with a steepening of the spherically averaged density profile ρ(r). In this work, we measure the splashback feature in the stacked weak gravitational lensing signal of 27 massive clusters from the Cluster Canadian Comparison Project with careful control of residual systematics effects. We find that the shear introduced by the presence of additional structure along the line of sight significantly affects the noise at large clustercentric distances. Although we do not detect a significant steepening, the use of a simple parametric model enables us to measure both |$r_\text{sp}=3.5^{+1.1}_{-0.7}$| comoving Mpc and the value of the logarithmic slope γ = log ρ/log r at this point, |$\gamma (r_\text{sp}) = -4.3^{+1.0}_{-1.5}$|⁠.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→